"Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states." (Bold added for emphasis)

Did they just say "IRREVOCABLY"? Oh YES they did! What does this mean? Let's find out...Irrevocable: Not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final.

"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." (D and C 130: 20-21)

Perhaps this, from Elder L. Tom Perry, an apostle, will help clarify:

"The doctrine of the family and the home was recently reiterated with great clarity and forcefulness in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” It declared the eternal nature of families and then explained the connection to temple worship. The proclamation also declared the law upon which the eternal happiness of families is predicated, namely, “The sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.”

God reveals to His prophets that there are moral absolutes. Sin will always be sin. Disobedience to the Lord’s commandments will always deprive us of His blessings. The world changes constantly and dramatically, but God, His commandments, and promised blessings do not change. They are immutable and unchanging. Men and women receive their agency as a gift from God, but their liberty and, in turn, their eternal happiness come from obedience to His laws. As Alma counseled his errant son Corianton, “Wickedness never was happiness” (Alma 41:10).

In this day of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel, the Lord has again revealed to us the blessings promised us for being obedient to His commandments. In Doctrine and Covenants 130 we read:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

“And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (v. 20–21).

Surely there could not be any doctrine more strongly expressed in the scriptures than the Lord’s unchanging commandments and their connection to our happiness and well-being as individuals, as families, and as a society. There are moral absolutes. Disobedience to the Lord’s commandments will always deprive us of His blessings. These things do not change.

In a world where the moral compass of society is faltering, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ never wavers, nor should its stakes and wards, its families, or its individual members. We must not pick and choose which commandments we think are important to keep but acknowledge all of God’s commandments. We must stand firm and steadfast, having perfect confidence in the Lord’s consistency and perfect trust in His promises.

May we ever be a light on the hill, an example in keeping the commandments, which have never changed and will never change." (Bold added for emphasis)

Please note that this strong declaration, regarding the doctrine of marriage, and its preordained status in the Plan of Salvation, was given during the most recent LDS General Conference. Also notice that Elder Perry referred to the Proclamation as 'doctrine'; sadly debated by some within the Church.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson, current members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, responds to the question: Is the Church softening its position regarding same sex attraction?

"There shouldn’t be a perception or an expectation that the Church’s doctrines or position have changed or are changing. It’s simply not true, and we want youth and all people to understand that. The doctrines that relate to human sexuality and gender are really central to our theology. And marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages – that’s all central to God’s plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines – has been, always will be – and can never be anything but transgression. It’s something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us."

Doctrine? Isn't that changeable if a revelation comes, sending more light and knowledge? Let's find out...On the doctrine of marriage, past President of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, said this, when pointing out some of the important revelations which came through the prophet Joseph Smith, during the early days of the Restoration of the Gospel:

Another great and singular revelation given to the Prophet was the plan for the eternal life of the family.

The family is a creation of the Almighty. It represents the most sacred of all relationships. It represents the most serious of all undertakings. It is the fundamental organization of society.

Through the revelations of God to His Prophet came the doctrine and authority under which families are sealed together not only for this life but for all eternity.

I think that if we had the capacity to teach effectively this one doctrine, it would capture the interest of millions of husbands and wives who love one another and who love their children, but whose marriage is in effect only “until death do you part.”

"In the Church, we stress the significance of marriage, children, and the family because we know the doctrine. And we, as leaders of the Church, know that the adversary incessantly aims attacks at the family. In the past 50 years the birth rate has dropped in nearly every nation of the world. Marriages are being postponed until later in life, and families are getting smaller, even in the Church.

Our task to defend the family is not an easy one. Trends in the world diminish the significance of the family. Sadly, the sacred powers of procreation are desecrated by many people. And the divinely designed nature of marital intimacy is tarnished by the addictive, pernicious, and poisonous plague of pornography.

In reality, we are raising our children in enemy-occupied territory. The homes of our members must become the primary sanctuaries of our faith, where each can be safe from the sins of the world.

Our Master depends upon us to live according to His truth. Please teach our members that marriage is ordained of God. It is doctrinally based and eternally significant. The Lord has taught:

“From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Three times in sacred scripture the warning is made that “the whole earth would be utterly wasted” at the Lord’s return if certain conditions were not in place (see D and C 2:3; 138:48; Joseph Smith—History 1:39). In each instance, that warning relates to the condition of the human family without the sealing ordinances of the temple. Without these ordinances of exaltation, the purposes of creation would not be realized.

The work and glory of God—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man—comprise the foundation on which we stand as leaders in the Church." (Italics added)

Joseph F. Smith, the last LDS Church President to have personally known the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., taught this on the subject of what is LDS doctrine, and what is not:

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3

As Elder Perry said, "God reveals to His prophets that there are moral absolutes." The question at this point: Is marriage between only a man and a woman, ordained of God, as firmly stated by current prophets of God, a "moral absolute"?
I believe, based on modern revelation and scripture that indeed it is, and that the further light and knowledge expected, is now coming through his current Prophet, in the call to stand for traditional marriage, and in doing so we keep our covenant to sustain His anointed servants. I find it interesting that many feel that what is revealed today, in the most critical of times, is potentially lacking the necessary light to guide the Lord's Church in these, the Last Days, to bring all unto Christ.

One would think that missionary work would pick up if the Church were to suddenly accept same-sex marriage, now that its becoming legal on a broader scale, and with recent polls suggesting that the majority now support it. So why isn't the Church changing, if as some of our critics suggest, it is run like a 'business' and by controlling, greedy old men, and that its members are either clueless and/or brainwashed? Certainly if they did, it would increase tithing donations - seen as a financial benefit to the Church, and not a commandment from God.
Others believe that the Church made a regrettable decision in supporting Proposition 8, and because of that blunder, the Church has established a new website, mormonsandgays.org, with the intention of repairing the damage by "building bridges" with the LDS homosexual community, indicative that they are finally "softening" their position on homosexuality, which will eventually lead to the acceptance of same-sex marriage - so why not now?
Why go through standing for traditional marriage, publicly, losing some of its membership, because of that decision, and go so far as to submit afriends of the court brief to the United States Supreme Court, admonishing the court to uphold Prop 8? Or for that matter, why would the LDS Church step out in support of the recent BSA policy change, upsetting to many, which now allows gay youth to participate in the scouting program, with all the backlash that decision has garnered - even among other Christian denominations?

To those who think that the LDS Church is going to eventually accept same-sex marriage, or should, when extreme outside pressure finally force them to 'do the right thing', then what is the Church waiting for? Why hasn't God given the expected revelation (Seeing as outside pressure is how some believe revelation comes) when its faithful members are now considered bigots and homophobes, among other things, by the majority of society - even their own government?

I'll tell you why: He can't. He's "not able". He cannot remove the required laws, which obedience to, will ultimately exalt His children, for their temporary happiness - and which would completely undermine the Plan of Salvation instituted before the foundation of the world; His work and glory. If He did, He would cease to be God. Former President of the Church, Howard W. Hunter, explains mans God-given agencyin relation to His unchanging character:

To fully understand this gift of agency and its inestimable worth, it is imperative that we understand that God’s chief way of acting is by persuasion and patience and long-suffering, not by coercion and stark confrontation. He acts by gentle solicitation and by sweet enticement. He always acts with unfailing respect for the freedom and independence that we possess. He wants to help us and pleads for the chance to assist us, but he will not do so in violation of our agency. He loves us too much to do that, and doing so would run counter to his divine character.

Brigham Young once said: “The volition of [man] is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. … This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice.” (In Journal of Discourses, 11:272.)

With this understanding, I believe that it becomes easier to understand how the world is allowed to become so wicked unto the convincing of others that, that which is popular is considered progression - when in reality they have been blinded by the adversary. Our Father in Heaven knows that only through the eternal law of individual agency can we freely choose Him to be our God; having experienced the consequences of choosing between good and evil.

"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."

"This verse shows a part of God’s basic nature: the way He deals with His children and the reason they can trust Him. Elder James E. Talmage said: “‘Mormonism’ has taught me that God holds himself accountable to law even as he expects us to do. He has set us the example in obedience to law. I know that to say this would have been heresy a few decades ago. But we have the divine word for it: ‘I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.’ (Doc. and Cov. 82:10.) He operates by law and not by arbitrariness or caprice.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 96.)" Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual

In the Mormon Newsroom's bold statement, the word "irrevocably" was intently used to reiterate what the official position of the LDS Church is on marriage - only between a man and a woman - and that it always will be "regardless of the court decision" - and regardless of outside, cultural pressure. As Elder Perry firmly proclaimed, to any who believe differently or aren't sure, "These things do not change".To those who have fallen for the false assumption that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have "softened" morally, and are now finding out the truth that the LDS Church has not, and never will, they might very well be shocked when finding out that they have been deceived.Many good people have accepted, as official, misguided misrepresentations of various positions of the LDS Church, associated with homosexuality and gay marriage, in particular, by those having no authority - and who advocate for that which is oppositional to the Church - under the guise of faithful membership. In reality, it is those individual members of the Church who are soft, or are softening, and believe that through outside advocacy, this pressure will cause their desired hope for change within the Church. It's a kind of 'say it is and it will be" approach intended to manipulate a conversation and distort God's true message; propaganda.
If there is a positive to having my vote, along with 7 million other Californians', disenfranchised by not only my state, but in essence, by the highest court in the land, it is that the faithful are witnesses to God's Word (Revealed doctrine) which can be trusted under the greatest pressures of man - and that He expects those who have made covenants with Him, to stand and endure that pressure. In this light, it can be felt a blessing to be upon the earth at this time, and do what I am confident many of us covenanted to do - possibly before we were born.

I harbor no ill feelings toward those who identify as homosexual, and others, who are pleased with the federal court's decision on Prop 8 and/or DOMA, which I am not. I am sorry that a desire for same-gender marriage, by some, is the issue mingled in the governments, both state and federal, making decisions that have compromised democracy for all Americans - gay and straight. I am deeply disturbed, even saddened, that most have made the choice to either ignore, deny or defend this great travesty to our democracy the Prop 8 case resulted in, on the basis of immediate gratification, believed rights, or tolerance. I am in full agreement with the LDS Church's response, which also speaks to these concerns:

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved."

Read entire news release on Mormon Newsroom.This Californian, most certainly feels that, indeed, there is something "fundamentally wrong" with how, at both levels of government, they have managed to become involved with the Prop 8 case and refused to honor and defend the clear voice of the people on this matter. I have no doubt that if the state had upheld the vote of 7 million Californians', that likely we would already have legalized same-sex marriage - and through the proper democratic channels.I have come to feel that the people of California have been used for a much larger agenda: to promote gay marriage broadly. Activist judges have used their position of authority, in my opinion, to bring global attention to the cause, in order to promote the homosexual platform worldwide, and sadly with much success. This is a clear abuse of power. As they have done so, all eyes have been on California - as liberals have used the Prop 8 case to advance their agenda of a distorted view of equality, convincing most that those who clamor for gay marriage are in a comparable situation to those of the civil rights movement - which they are not. The distorted argument, slowly being accepted by mainstream society, which is the greatest of their lies: children do not need a mother and a father.
It is no wonder, in my opinion, as one who accepted the call, that the Lord inspired His prophet(s) to become involved with this moral issue in California, to boldly invite the local membership of the Church to stand for traditional marriage by opposing Prop 8. None of us could have known, initially, the extent of what this exercise of our faith would mean. Among the unanticipated, are the abuses the LDS Church receives, and the personal challenges of individual members', and families', by those who disagree with the Church's position to do so, and why; staggering to contemplate. I am inclined to feel that the time will come, when the Saints in California, will be considered among the ranks of those who crossed the plains; as personal sacrifices in doing so currently are unknown. I am aware of only a handful of the sacrifices members here have made, and trust that all are being recorded in heaven.

"The Supreme Court chose to reward corrupt public officials and judges and disrespect the right of the people of California to define marriage in the way that marriage has actually existed throughout human history — the union of one man and one woman.

First off, over 7 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8. It was the second time that California voters had decided to preserve the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Not content to let voters have their say, gay marriage activists from Hollywood and New York hired celebrity lawyers Ted Olsen and David Boies to sue and the case now known as Hollingsworth v. Perry began. Frankly, I've never seen such corruption in the judicial system as I have seen in this case. First, a homosexual judge in a long-term gay relationship was assigned the case, and refused to disclose his relationship before declaring that marriage is unconstitutional. Then we had to turn to the most liberal appeals court in the nation, the Ninth Circuit, whose senior judge — Stephen Reinhardt — agreed that marriage must be redefined. Reinhardt wrote the appeals court opinion invalidating Proposition 8, despite the fact that his own wife advised the lawyers challenging the initiative. Incredibly, Reinhardt, like the corrupt trial judge, refused to remove himself over his conflict of interest.

To make matters worse, the elected officials responsible for defending the vote of the people and who swore an oath to do so — Arnold Schwarzenegger, then — Attorney General (now Governor) Jerry Brown, and current Attorney General Kamala Harris — abandoned their duty and left marriage defenseless. And all the evidence suggests they will continue in this vein unless we fight back.

The Supreme Court then rewarded this cronyism and corruption by effectively giving negligent public officials a pocket veto over ballot measures they don't like. All they have to do now thanks to the Supreme Court is refuse to defend a law passed by the people, and it will crash and burn in the courts."

"It's an outrage."

Yes, it is.

From a doctrinal perspective, I believe it is agency that, endowed by God, is at play in where the world is going - as society casts morality by the wayside.
The greatest blessings that God has to bestow upon His Children, will only come to those who have married in God's ordained way and in His holy temple - in order to establish eternal families and experience a fulness of joy. Mormons believe that all marriages between a man and a woman, even civil, are on this path, if they so choose it. If the purpose of this life is to learn through our own experiences, to ultimately choose God, then it begins to become clear why those who insist on that which is unacceptable before Him, are allowed to experience it, and the inevitable, negative consequences.That wickedness will never produce happiness is an eternal truth. There will be no long-term satisfaction in breaking the commandments of God, nor positive results going forward into the next generation. If society as a whole, have made a choice to ignore God (Some denying His existence), who rules by absolute love and law, then they will experience their choices to the point where they will hopefully use that God-given agency to choose Him; as did the prodigal son. Perhaps the faithful, those who must endure this particular time in the history of the world - the last dispensation, where the fulness of all things here in morality are revealed (Maybe people) while our brothers and sisters learn to choose God, including the many children yet to be born, agreed to do so. That sounds like love to me; genuine, eternal, family love. And even if it's not, it's a nice way to think about our current circumstances, with an understanding that we are all brothers and sisters whom God, the Father of us all, equally desires to return home. His love for us is not focused on our behavior, rather, it has everything to do with who we are, which is why He sent His Only Begotten Son to die for us - that we might Live.
In regard to the 'world', change, and the Church, I like what a friend pointed out: "The Church has been and continues to be changed by the outside world. God's laws, on the other hand, will not be." So simple and so true. Remember that, and go forward with an understanding that God knows His Plan, He knows His children, and that the agency that He gave us is intended to, "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of ALL, and that we agreed to the Plan - even shouting for joy!
It is a plan of love, and with a better understanding of the purpose of our agency, perhaps we will come to love better, those who choose and or think differently than we do. It is an amazing and miraculous thought to consider, that all who choose God, will eventually be joined in the unity that the Godhead now enjoy and which governs the Plan of Salvation.

"And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." (Moses 7:18)

Such a beautiful comment, my friend. Thank you. But honestly, when you know that the Church is true, and that indeed we are led by living prophets, inspired of God, we are bound to these truths and must abide by them. I know many do, which strengthens me daily - you, being one of those.

Brilliant! Thank you Kathryn. May I just add, from Pres Kimball in 1980, "The time will come when only those who believe deeply and actively in the family will be able to preserve their families in the midst of the gathering evil around us...We are free to resist those moves which downplay the significance of the family and which play up the significance of selfish individualism"I for one, want to preserve my eternal family.

Many of the statements of the prophets from thirty, forty, and fifty years ago, when I read them in light of what's going on today, are chillingly prophetic. Pres. Kimball's quote above is haunting in its accuracy.

To: Denise. Thank you for that gem of a quote. I found the whole talk. It is worth reading and studying. He prophesied a lot in that talk and some of come to pass and some have not. Here's the link if anyone is interested.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/10/families-can-be-eternal?lang=eng&cid=facebook-shared

You're welcome Kathryn and Diane. FYI the quote is also in "Daughters in my Kingdom" along with some other really good counsel and encouragement to be actively involved to protecting families - Chapter 9.

"By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens."

The church constantly tells the world that they only get involved in moral issues. Clearly that is not true. The above statement deals with government and how government operates--nothing to do with morality. The church is passing judgment on governmental officials acting in their professional capacities. I don't care if they do. Many churches do this. Just don't tell us morality is your only concern.

The church paints itself into a box when it talks about what the majority wants. It it clear that the majority of Californians are now in favor of SSM. One Field poll puts it at 61 to 32 in favor. Should we just capture that moment in time, that one vote and mandate it forever because that is what the majority wanted on that one day? Either the church is interested in the majority view or not. If not, the church leaders need to quit using it as an argument. Perhaps, it is only the vote and not the views of the majority that are of concern. I am sure it is the former when the latter is against its own views.

"In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved."

So we are to stay away from complex issues because they are complex? Or maybe just further complex issues.

Brian, I can appreciate your thoughts, and how you could come to them, however, honesty is very much associated with morality, and so from that position I can see how the LDS Church can make what they feel is a non-political statement.

In fact, my gut has felt these things for a long time, and I've stated so in various conversations and blog posts. In my opinion, the lack of honesty that I believe is taking place within our government, has everything to do with the ability to maintain a moral society.

I'm really glad you are bringing this point out, as I didn't view the statement as you have, which is now allowing me to address that point.

Prop 8 is not based in what is now the majority of thought when it comes to SSM and should not be ruled on by that standard. This is an issue, I think, of honest democracy that has not been, and as I state in this post, I believe CA., has been used to further the broader conversation with no regard for the price democracy would pay -which we will only know down road, but which has many discouraged and disillusioned already, and rightfully so - I feel.

BTW, I'm not here to defend or authoritatively interpret the Church's statement, as I don't know why they wrote what they wrote, necessarily - I can only speculate, like you. Certainly I can tell you how I feel and why, but I doubt that will satisfy anyone, who tends to be critical of most things about the Church.

Careful, Lori... I may get a big head! lol Just kidding. But seriously, thank you for reaching out to say so. This was a labor of love for me. I needed to write this, for many reasons, of which I felt compelled.

Such beautiful truth you have written, Kathryn! I love how you explained in detail how the doctrine of the family will never change. I have a feeling our Family Proclamation Celebration will be even more amazing than it has ever been!

Thank you, my friend. I'm excited to be a part of the Family Proclamation Celebration this year. I've already lined up some amazing writers! SO excited! Such a wonderful doctrine to live by, teach and enjoy the blessings therefrom here and now!

I'mextremely impressed on all levels with this post. I love reading your posts anyway but this was eloquent and spoke truth. By following irrevocable laws I hope we can keep our families together with the help of heaven.

Thank you, so much - such kind words. No need to "hope", Paisley Girl, we can trust God's Word. He's promised us if we keep His commandments, everything He has is ours - Eternal Life.: It's fixed and immovable. All we have to do, is choose it! )

I was especially appreciative of this part of your post: "the faithful are witnesses to God's Word (Revealed doctrine) which can be trusted under the greatest pressures of man - and that He expects those who have made covenants with Him, to stand and endure that pressure. In this light, it can be felt a blessing to be upon the earth at this time, and do what I am confident many of us covenanted to do - possibly before we were born." Because I CAN trust Him, I need not fear when I endure pressure --- WOW. Thank you for that reminder! I will admit to being fearful every time I post something in defense of marriage just because I know I'll have a few friends and family who will always want to fight about it, twist words, twist truth and even twist doctrine and I don't always know how to calmly respond. But thank you for pointing out the privilege it is to be on the earth at this time. It is not a time to fear for our children and grandchildren. It is a time to strengthen and teach them. If as a society we approve of counterfeit happiness, wouldn't we all be responsible for the eternal sadness it would cause when those family relationships cannot be eternal?

Thank you. I'm glad those thoughts resonated with you - I was touched when they came to me. I'm not sure that there is a greater blessing that we can be given, in this life, than a fervent testimony of the truthfulness of Gospel, which can only come by the Spirit. When we stand for truth, the Spirit will witness that truth to us, with even greater power than the faith we exercised to act. It's an amazing process - so thrilling to understand and apply - and so many opportunities to experience it - because we are living in the last days.

And I love how you worded it: "Because I CAN trust Him, I need not fear when I endure pressure". Thank you for sharing your thoughts, too.

Kathryn, this post is fantastic! You have done an exceptional job of backing up the Lord's doctrine with clarity. So much so, that there can be no question where God and consequently the Prophet and Apostles are on this significant doctrine.

I love that you brought out Elder Perry's talk (wonderful!) and paid particular attention to the fact that The Family: A Proclamation to the World is indeed doctrine.

"The doctrine of the family and the home was recently reiterated with great clarity and forcefulness in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Thank you for bringing this all together, I am sure many will be referring back to this post again and again:)

Thank you, Angela. I love the clarity of our doctrine, and that living prophets, ongoing, continue to teach it, and testify that it is eternal - not changing.

Elder Perry's address impacted me greatly, as I'm sure it did many of the faithful, who stand with the position of the Church on marriage and family. The teachings throughout the Proclamation are doctrine, and it is right to identify them as such. That fact that Elder Perry made a point to do so, I feel is significant and should not be ignored, or allowed to go undetected by anyone who may think differently. I am happy to point it out! : )

Judah, I hear the very same phrases and response from a lot of people on the fence on this issue and would like to respond on how gay marriage and gay adoption (they go hand in hand quite often) affect the rest of us. Simply put, it literally changes our entire society, from the way our legal systems work, how educational systems will be forced to include gay marriage as equal or an option in everything from children's story books to biology and sociolgy classes and so forth. Children and youth in high school who speak out against homosexuality are disciplined and called bigots. Businesses who do not subscribe to the idea of gay marriage are boycotted or sued (even if it is against personal religious belief). Even at the United Nations, third world nations who speak out against homosexual marriage are being threatened by the U.S. that they will make foreign aid and support very difficult for them until they give in (this was documented by government leaders from countries in Africa at the recent World Congress of Families). There will continue to be greater hostility towards those with religious belief in the sanctity of marriage.

But more than this, homosexuals who find ways to adopt children (whether by leaving a spouse from a current marriage to live the gay lifestyle or outright adopting, or using donars), automatically rob children of a mother or a father in the home. The best interests of the children are put aside. That is how it does hurt society. There are countless studies that prove that not having a mother or a father is detrimental to children and society in every possible way (socially, economically, emotionally and so forth).

Elder Lance B. Wickman, in an interview about same-gender marriage, stated it perfectly when he explained:

"This notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage. ... It does have a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme."

Angela, your paragraph about gay couples adopting children is completely without basis and the statement "...automatically rob children of a mother or a father in the home. The best interests of the children are put aside" is ignorant, uninformed, and offensive. In many areas, there are far more children in need of homes than families to provide them. What you're saying is that all children who are adopted by committed, gay couples would be going to homes with a mother and father present. That's simply not true. One, single people are permitted to adopt and two, many of these children would be placed in the custody of the state and unfortunately bounced from foster home to foster home. Surely you are not so close minded or full of ignorance/fear/hate that you would suggest that it's better for a child to be placed with a single parent or in the tenuous situation of foster care than with a committed gay couple. Are you telling me that God would prefer a child be placed in foster care or in a single parent home than one with a loving, committed gay couple as parents?

As an aside, I find it a bit disingenuous for the Church to claim that it's always been irrevocably committed to "traditional marriage" since for a long period during its history bigamy was taught to be necessary to enter the celestial kingdom. I also find it ironic that during this period where bigamy was practiced the church wanted government protection for its minority view and now the Church is criticizing the court for not siding with the majority. Just as an FYI, I'm a church attending, temple recommend holding member. I just get a bit tired of the politics and PR that sometimes come from church headquarters.

Since you are a "church attending, temple recommend holding member", then surely you know that homosexual behavior is considered, by God, a sin. So, in answer to your question I would presume that, yes, God would probably prefer to have a child placed in the foster care of a loving heterosexual couple, or even with a single mom or dad, over a "committed gay couple".

In my opinion, the potential for a single parent to eventually marry would be preferable to placing a child in a "committed" gay coupling, where no chance of having both a mother and a father would be possible. And even if, perhaps, that single parent never married, providing that complementary facet, it would prevent a child being placed in a situation where two gay people were living contrary to God's will.

And I strongly agree that gay adoption is willfully robbing a child, even if legal, of either a mother or father. Why? According to "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", it states:

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. "

If this position is "close minded", then I proudly stand "close minded" along side of living prophets of God. And if you say that those who hold this position are "ignorant, uninformed and offensive" and/or "full of ignorance/fear/hate" -- then I would remind you with 'whom' those you judge align themselves -- and wonder if you are not the uniformed?

To your "aside": bigamy was never taught; nor was it linked to entering the celestial kingdom.

If you care to comment further, please refrain from personal attacks, if you hope it to be approved.

The problem with your "God" is that there's no actual proof he exists. So denying gay people the right to get married on the off chance it mightpiss of a most likely fictional man in the sky is quite ridiculous.

Have fun believing in whatever God you choose to believe in, but please don't let it affect whom I fall in love with because I can guarantee you that you will never know because it's not going to affect you. I promise you. Unless you want to leave me your e-mail address and when the day comes and I perhaps fall in love with someone of the same sex as myself, I'll send you multiple e-mails telling you so. Then I could see how it would affect your life, what with multiple e-mails coming in spamming your inbox.

Guess what is probably happening right now? Two gay guys are probably kissing or doing even more than that. Is it affecting your life at all? Stop and look around. Is anything different in your current area? Did things begin to fall off the shelves? Is your TV randomly turning channels? Maybe your light is flickering on and off? No? Nothing is happening to you? Well, look at that. Maybe same-sex couples don't affect you after all!

Try minding your own business and let people marry whomever they want. It never has, nor will it ever affect you in any way, shape, or form.

You'll probably delete this comment because I don't agree with you. If I'm going to be completely honest here, there's a lot of people that don't agree with you. You're not going to win. It's impossible. Love wins over hate every time.

And no, you don't love the "sinner" and hate the "sin." Or whatever. Because there's no such thing as "sins" because there's most likely no such thing as God. As long as these same-sex couples aren't doing anything to break actual laws, actual things that matter, then there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Even if being gay was a "sin" it doesn't matter. You probably don't treat every single "sin" the same way you do homosexuality. You only make a big deal out of homosexuality because it's something you don't understand and are disgusted with. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Don't like to see gay people kissing? Stop looking it up. Don't want to associate with any gay people? Good, they would rather you didn't anyway.

All I can say is, I hope your kid(s) don't end up to be gay. I would hate to be gay and have you as a mother. At least my mom is accepting of who I am and doesn't care if I'm gay, straight, bisexual, or whatever. It's my life, not yours. Live your life, not everyone else's.

Kathryn, could you elaborate on your comment that "bigamy was never taught; nor was it linked to entering the celestial kingdom"? Are you making a distinction between bigamy and polygamy or plural marriage (which absolutely *was* taught and practiced openly by church leaders from the time of President Brigham Young until the manifesto was issued by President Wilford Woodruff in 1890 - not even counting the polygamy that Joseph Smith practices less publicly)? Many church leaders during that time period *did* preach that plural marriage was required to achieve exaltation. I'm at a complete loss to understand how you can possibly make that statement.

I believe in abiding by the laws of the state and land. I live in a state where marriage between the same sex is legal. I do not believe that this is the law of the Almighty God. I allow people around me to express their opinions and I do not judge them. However I also have right as anyone else living in this free democracy(USA)to express my beliefs which are based on my interpretations of the Holy Books. There are many interpretations of scriptures and mine are the ones I choose to live my life by and they align with my religion and the leaders in it. I can't pick and choose or be partially OK with the teachings of my faith. To me that means I am not committed to it.

For me it all boils down to freedom of religion. I want to be able to practice my religion, freely and peacefully and I think everyone in this country should always be able to have this choice. If I am asked my beliefs, I will hopefully and humbly express them regardless of political correctness. If someone wants to wear their religious attire like a Taqiyah or a Kippah, they indeed have that right, under the constitution to practice their individual religion. One religion would not wear the others clothing and vs. versa. The same with the religious ordinances, I would not expect an orthodox Rabbi to perform a marriage between members of the same sex, based on their belief system even if someone thinks that they should. That would indeed take away our religious freedoms and surely the constitution would be in jeopardy.

That is why I am careful when I talk about my religion and what I believe. One can belong to any religion and be a homosexual, that does not mean that the leaders of that religion should marry them if their religion does not believe in that. If one is uncomfortable with the teachings of their religion and the way their Ministers, Pastors, Rabbis Bishops and Leaders interpret the religion then perhaps they would be more comfortable in another religious group instead of criticizing the leaders of one faith or another and expecting them to amend their views to accommodate their individual beliefs, whether that be same sex marriage, or family structure. God's word is unchanging Revelation 22:18"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man should add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

I believe in abiding by the laws of the state and land. I live in a state where marriage between the same sex is legal. I do not believe that this is the law of the Almighty God. I allow people around me to express their opinions and I do not judge them. However I also have right as anyone else living in this free democracy(USA)to express my beliefs which are based on my interpretations of the Holy Books. There are many interpretations of scriptures and mine are the ones I choose to live my life by and they align with my religion and the leaders in it. I can't pick and choose or be partially OK with the teachings of my faith. To me that means I am not committed to it.

For me it all boils down to freedom of religion. I want to be able to practice my religion, freely and peacefully and I think everyone in this country should always be able to have this choice. If I am asked my beliefs, I will hopefully and humbly express them regardless of political correctness. If someone wants to wear their religious attire like a Taqiyah or a Kippah, they indeed have that right, under the constitution to practice their individual religion. One religion would not wear the others clothing and vs. versa. The same with the religious ordinances, I would not expect an orthodox Rabbi to perform a marriage between members of the same sex, based on their belief system even if someone thinks that they should. That would indeed take away our religious freedoms and surely the constitution would be in jeopardy.

That is why I am careful when I talk about my religion and what I believe. One can belong to any religion and be a homosexual, that does not mean that the leaders of that religion should marry them if their religion does not believe in that. If one is uncomfortable with the teachings of their religion and the way their Ministers, Pastors, Rabbis Bishops and Leaders interpret the religion then perhaps they would be more comfortable in another religious group instead of criticizing the leaders of one faith or another and expecting them to amend their views to accommodate their individual beliefs, whether that be same sex marriage, or family structure. God's word is unchanging Revelation 22:18"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man should add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

In answer to Emily's question about bigamy, it is important to make a distinction between official doctrine of the church and official practice. Practices, policies and procedures change all the time in the church, but doctrines do not. Kathryn's response to CAW was technically correct. Polygamy was never an official doctrine of the church, taught to the whole church. It was a principle practiced by only 10-20% of the membership at its height, thus defining it something that could NOT be required for exaltation (except for those commanded to live it). A couple of quotes might be helpful: “The Latter-day Saints were long regarded as a polygamous people. That plural marriage has been practiced by a limited proportion of the people, under sanction of Church ordinance, has never since the introduction of the system been denied. But that plural marriage is a vital tenet of The Church is not true. What the Latter-day Saints call celestial marriage is characteristic of The Church, and is in very general practice; but of celestial marriage, plurality of wives was an incident, never an essential. Yet the two have never been segregated in the popular mind…. As The Church had adopted the practice under what was believed to be divine approval, they suspended it when they were justified in so doing. In whatever light this practice has been regarded in the past, it is today a dead issue, forbidden by ecclesiastical rule as it is prohibited by legal statute.” James E. Talmage, Improvement Era Oct. 1901Also: “In the early days of this dispensation, as part of the promised restitution of all things, the Lord revealed the principle of plural marriage to the Prophet. Later the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart despite the consequent animosity and prejudices of worldly people...Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people...could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D&C 132:1-28) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D&C 132:7, 29-66.) All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness.” Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 578